Managing part number preferredness

ABSTRACT

Methods, systems and apparatus for defining, updating and communicating the current status of parts used by an enterprise to designers and procurement specialists. Allowable values of preferredness of parts are defined based on technology roadmaps, and these values are periodically checked in a current time period against certain criteria, and changes are made in the preferredness values to reflect current conditions in the time period and current estimates for future conditions. Software, including algorithms, is changed as required to implement the changes in the preferredness values, and the updated software is released for use by procurement and design personnel for ensuring consistency of values of preferredness and preferred part codes within an enterprise.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention is generally directed to parts procurement, and inparticular, to methods, systems and apparatus for updating andcommunicating the current status of parts used by an enterprise todesigners and procurement specialists

2. Description of Related Art

It is generally known in the manufacturing industry that a product isonly as good as its collective components. In the early design phase ofa product development cycle, design engineers are tasked with selectingthe parts that will be incorporated into a product design. While theselections made by the designer may be technically sound, they may notalways be the most cost effective from a financial standpoint. This isbecause the designer is often not privy to important business data, suchas, cost rebates available from a particular supplier. Further, thesepart selections may not be the most pragmatic from a logisticalstandpoint since the designer is not equipped with the business skillsor knowledge of a procurement specialist. As a result, parts having somebusiness and/or technical risks may be passed on to development for usein a product design.

Procurement specialists evaluate the business risks associated withparticular part selections. This is accomplished by examining variousfactors associated with such part selections, such as, reliability,supplier technology and capability, availability, etc.

It is, therefore, desirable to provide methods, systems and apparatusfor reviewing parts status, flagging problem and/or risk parts, andtaking any actions necessary to mitigate such problems and/or risks asearly in the design phase as possible. These methods, systems andapparatus will avoid delivering parts having business and/or technicalrisks to development, thereby improving production yields, lead timesand costs.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Bearing in mind the problems and deficiencies of the prior art, it istherefore an object of the present invention to provide methods, systemsand apparatus for reviewing parts status and identifying any problemand/or risk parts.

Another object of the present invention is to provide methods, systemsand apparatus for preventing delivery of parts having business and/ortechnical risks associated therewith to development.

It is another object of the present invention to provide methods,systems and apparatus for updating and communicating a current status ofparts used by an enterprise to designers and procurement specialists forimproving production yields, lead times and costs.

Still objects of the present invention are to provide methods, systemsand apparatus for defining allowable values of preferredness of partsbased on technology roadmaps, checking the accuracy of present valuesagainst certain predefined criteria, and ensuring consistency of valuesof preferredness and preferred part codes within an enterprise.

Other objects and advantages of the invention will in part be obviousand will in part be apparent from the specification.

The above and other objects, which will be apparent to those skilled inart, are achieved in the present invention, which is directed to, in afirst aspect, a method for managing component preferredness forcomponents used in products. The method includes providing technologyroadmaps identifying components available for particular technologiesand assigning preferredness values for these components. Periodically,selected ones of the roadmaps are reviewed in a current time period andchanges are made in the preferredness values to reflect currentconditions in the time period and current estimates for futureconditions. Software, including algorithms, is changed as required toimplement the changes in the preferredness values, and the updatedsoftware is released for production use by procurement and designpersonnel. Once the software has been updated, the review of theselected ones of the roadmaps may then be re-run using this updatedsoftware.

The components are preferably procured commodities. In assigning thepreferredness values, these values are preferably assigned using aplurality of symbols that identify each components' preferrednessstatus.

In accordance with the invention, the method further includes selectingselected part numbers from a database that are associated with atechnology for review, and then determining if a roadmap is associatedwith this technology.

If a roadmap is associated with the technology, then those part numbersnot requiring a check are filtered out of the process. Those partnumbers requiring a check are then grouped into (N+1) groups, where N isthe number of distinct symbols used in the roadmap for the current timeperiod. Each of N groups is associated with a symbol in the technologyroadmap and the (N+1)th group contains part numbers in the technologythat are not included in the technology roadmap. It may then bedetermined if the current preferredness values are consistent with anypreviously made revisions. Those parts in the (N+1)th group are reviewedfor correct parameters selected from a set of parameters associated witha technology that does not have a roadmap.

If, however, it has been determined that the technology for the selectedpart numbers does not have a roadmap associated therewith, then theprocess continues by determining if the selected part numbers have anallowable preferredness value. If these selected part numbers do nothave an allowable preferredness value, then such part numbers are addedto an error report. This error report is reviewed in the step ofperiodically reviewing roadmaps in a current time period for making anyrequired changes in the preferredness values to reflect currentconditions and estimates for future conditions.

The invention also includes systems and program storage devices capableof carrying out the method steps described herein.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The features of the invention believed to be novel and the elementscharacteristic of the invention are set forth with particularity in theappended claims. The figures are for illustration purposes only and arenot drawn to scale. The invention itself, however, both as toorganization and method of operation, may best be understood byreference to the detailed description which follows taken in conjunctionwith the accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 shows the relationship between preferredness, technologyroadmaps, and users of preferredness values.

FIG. 2 shows the flow chart of a process of the invention that managescomponent preferredness.

FIG. 3 shows a component process within the process of FIG. 2.

FIG. 4 shows an example of a symbolic roadmap.

FIG. 5 shows definitions of the symbols of FIG. 4.

FIG. 6 shows a table of allowable values of preferredness for thevarious symbols.

FIG. 7 shows a table of definitions of preferredness values.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT(S)

In describing the preferred embodiment of the present invention,reference will be made herein to FIGS. 1-7 of the drawings in which likenumerals refer to like features of the invention.

Definitions relevant to the present invention are as follows:

Preferred Part. A preferred part is one that the technology developmentcouncils have determined to be of more value to the enterprise from atechnical and business standpoint as compared to another part. Preferredparts are divided into two areas: technology and suppliers.

The following criteria may be used for defining preferred partsaccording to technology:

Industry standard. This element is concerned with whether or not thepart is readily available from the industry. Wide acceptance of a partin the industry usually means good supply and price.

Number of suppliers. The number of suppliers producing the technology ishelpful in assessing whether or not sufficient suppliers exist tosatisfy enterprise and industry demand.

Continuity of supply. This factor addresses whether there are any knownissues or technical events that may affect supply. For example, anatural disaster, such as, an earthquake or a serious fire may affect asupplier's ability to manufacture parts.

Adequate lead times/capacity. This element is concerned with the amountof planning needed to ensure continuity of supply. Long lead timesusually mean insufficient supply.

Quality/reliability. This element addresses whether or not there are anyknown issues that may affect the enterprise's ability to ship a productdue to a supplier's manufacturing and/or design issue.

Manufacturability. This factor establishes whether the technology underevaluation lends itself to problem-free assembly in theenterprise-designated assembly facility. For example, a certain packagedesign may be more difficult to solder onto a card versus anotherpackage design.

Technical advantage. This element assesses whether use of the technologygives the enterprise a technical advantage in the market place. Forexample, one type of part may increase a machine's technical performanceas compared to another type of part (microprocessor A works better in adesign than microprocessor B).

Position in the technology life cycle. This item addresses whether thistechnology will be available for the life of an enterprise program orwhether there will be a need to execute an end-of-life exercise. Anend-of-life exercise includes analysis of total parts requirements (frommany machines or designs) for the remainder of a manufacturing period(e.g., from today until the date manufacturing will stop), establishingsupply to fulfill those requirements, and inventory storage of theparts.

The following criteria may be used for defining preferred partsaccording to supplier selection.

Supplier technology. Suppliers are compared to one another in the areasof quality/reliability; the ability to offer leading edge technology,steps they are taking to improve technology, and the ease with which thesupplier may be qualified for the enterprise's products.

Supplier menu. Supplier menu refers to the nature and scope of itsproduct offerings and how well the supplier's offerings match enterpriseneeds (i.e., technology road map convergence as discussed furtherherein).

Pricing. This factor looks not only at current price offerings but alsowhether the supplier provides aggressive pricing throughout the productlife, whether the pricing is aggressive in beating the market average,and whether the supplier's pricing is aggressive across its entireoffering as opposed to only select areas.

Capacity. Capacity refers to whether the supplier has the manufacturingcapacity to meet enterprise or industry demand and whether it isflexible in moving from one product set to another if market conditionsdictate a change.

Service. This factor assesses a supplier's serviceability to theenterprise in terms of delivery, communication, recovery capability,technical support and Electronic Data Interchange capability.

In addition to the above-described criteria, other factors may beemployed by an enterprise as desired in order to establish a preferredparts definition. It should be appreciated and understood that thepresent parts review process tool may be implemented for use in anyelectronics-based industry.

Non-Preferred Part. In contrast to a preferred part, non-preferred partsare those parts that have been found to have some type of riskassociated therewith. There are varying degrees of risk based on theenterprise's business and technical requirements. Risk types range froma part that will go end-of-life (EOL) during the time which the productwill be using the part to a part that is no longer available requiringthe substitution of a new part. Utilizing the technology and suppliercriteria listed above, a parts review process tool's action plan will beexecuted only on these non-preferred parts to determine if the risk ofusing this part may impact the program's revenue commitment. If the riskis accepted, a mitigation plan will be developed to minimize the risk.

Preferredness. “Preferredness” is a rating of whether a component partis acceptable for incorporation in a design of a product. Variousmethods of assigning values and various ranges of values may be used.Preferredness must have at least two values, preferred and notpreferred, with other intermediate values being available as options. Inone variation, an additional value of sunset is used to denote partsthat are adequate at present, but will soon not be suitable. Forexample, a technology may be adequate but one or more parts in thetechnology may be not preferred for certain business reasons.

Again, evaluation teams and council members for an enterprise determinethe preferred parts that a designer should consider first for use in adesign. Using a preferred part often means that development andprocurement experts who make up these teams/councils have determinedthat the part is readily available in the industry (no supply issues),is technically sound, will be available throughout the life of aspecified program, is being procured at the lowest cost available,amongst other criteria. Using these preferred parts, a strategy orpreferred parts action plan is developed. Once in place, it iscommunicated to all development and other interested personnel of theenterprise via a web site. The web site contains a visual picture of thestrategy, i.e., roadmap, a methodology to find a list of parts thatmatch the roadmap, a contact list, a price projection, and marketconditions (current and future predicted).

However, establishing a preferred parts list is only a portion of theprocess necessary to ensure that optimal resources are being utilized bythe enterprise. A preferred part can easily become non-preferredovernight. Ongoing reviews of technology and suppliers qualificationsmay be necessary. Existing parts become obsolete while emergingtechnologies continue to offer new and improved parts in the marketplace. Furthermore, design groups may tend to develop loyalties toexisting parts with which they are familiar, without consideration ofwhether the parts continue to be cost effective for the enterprise.

It has been found that availability, price and other relevant datachange often, so that there is a need for defining and updating valuesof preferredness and related data and communicating the current statusto both the procurement and design groups.

Accordingly, the present invention is directed to methods, systems andapparatus for defining, updating and communicating the current status ofparts used by an enterprise to designers and procurement specialists. Inparticular, the invention defines allowable values of preferredness ofparts based on technology roadmaps, checks the accuracy of presentvalues against certain criteria, and ensures consistency of values ofpreferredness and preferred part codes within an enterprise. In sodoing, the invention enables the review and management of parts status,flagging problem and/or risk parts, and taking any actions necessary tomitigate such problems and/or risks as early in the design phase aspossible.

Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows the relationship betweenpreferredness, technology roadmaps, and users of preferredness values.The relevance of accuracy in the assignment of preferredness values tovarious parts that go into a product is also shown. Box 10 shows thecurrent state of the relevant technology roadmap(s), while box 50represents the dependency that various Enterprise metrics have onPreferredness. For example, one Enterprise metric having an affect onPreferredness is the measurement of percentage willing to spend onpreferred parts versus the percentage willing to spend on non-preferredparts. Another Enterprise metric having an affect on Preferredness isthe measurement of percent of preferred parts on a Bill of Materials(BOM) (i.e., usage).

Oval 100 is at the center of the spectrum, which represents theimportance of accuracy in maintaining the correct values ofpreferredness. Maintaining the correct values of preferredness isimportant since this information is used for selection of parts bydevelopment for use in a new product (box 60). It is also used in aDeviation database, shown in box 40, such as the Deviation databasedescribed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,954, which is assigned to the assigneeof the present invention. Preferably, the deviation database containsall non-preferred parts extracted from a database along with key datathat identifies the part and the program that uses the part. Thisdatabase also contains data describing why the part was used and thestatus of the risk review.

Box 20 BOM Scrub Process is a formal process in which ProcurementEngineering reviews BOMs for upcoming product announcements. Thisprocess typically looks at BOMs in the early part of the design cycleand focuses exclusively on Non Preferred parts, flagging these partsbased on the value of Preferredness it has in the database. The ScrubProcess results in a formal position statement (e.g. non-support,alternative recommendations) from Procurement back to the designer

The importance of accuracy in maintaining the correct values ofpreferredness in oval 100 is also important for the BOM Assist/CRS ofbox 20. The correct values of preferredness is used in the BOMAssist/CRS system by designers to enter a BOM for the purpose ofacquiring procurement recommendations or new part numbers. One functionof the system allows designers to view Preferredness for selected parts.Another function allows the system to auto respond to requests forexisting part numbers. This auto response is based on the Preferrednessand Preferred Part Code values in the database for the existing part.

For ease of understanding the invention, FIG. 2 shows a preferred systemwith its process flow in accordance with the invention for managingcomponent preferredness. FIG. 2 shows an overall preferred flow chartillustrating the process of going from a technology roadmap to analgorithm for comparing the preferredness values in the relevantdatabase used by product designers with the values defined and updatedby the current technology roadmap.

Box 210 starts with the current (corporate) technology roadmap for theparticular technology being processed (e.g. memory chips). The basis forthe corporate roadmap is the industry roadmap, since it is assumed thatthe enterprise must adapt to what is available in the market. Theenterprise will make its own decision as to when it will start and stopusing a particular level of technology, so that the corporate roadmapwill in general differ from the industry roadmap. For example, if theindustry roadmap predicts that 32 Meg memory chips will be available inproduction quantities in the second quarter of 2006, the enterprise willhave to decide if a product scheduled for sale in the third quarter of2006 should be designed with such chips. The risk, of course, is that ifthe parts are not available at that time, and thus, the product cannotbe built and shipped, or it cannot be shipped with the predicted cost.

Once the roadmaps are created, Box 220 represents the process ofassigning preferredness values to the various symbols that are madeavailable to the designers. For example, a decision will need to be madeas to when a mature component should no longer be incorporated into newdesigns. Illustratively, the decision is made by a committee includingmembers from the development group and from the procurement group,referred to as a Technology Development Council (TDC).

These roadmaps are periodically reviewed (box 205) to check if technicalor market conditions require changing a symbol definition. A decision(decision diamond 225) must then be made to determine whether a changeis required in the definition(s) used in the internal roadmaps. If nochange is required, the process ends in box 227.

However, if a change is required, then an essential feature of theinvention is that the algorithm(s) used in the enterprise database arechanged or updated. In so doing, a loop is executed to write test casesand update the software in box 240, returning to revise the software ifthe changes are not correct (diamond 244). Once the software has beencorrectly updated, the process ends in box 246, with the disseminationof the revised software to be run when required, e.g. once a week.

FIG. 3 shows the implementation of box 230 in FIG. 2. Box 310 overlapsbox 210 in FIG. 2, creating roadmaps for some technologies anddetermining other technologies that do not require a roadmap. It is thendetermined whether or not a roadmap exists for a given technology indiamond 315.

If a roadmap exists for a particular technology, then for eachtechnology roadmap, part numbers are pulled from the enterprise databasethat are specific to a particular technology. The process continues tobox 330 where a filter is applied to the data to filter out those partnumbers that do not require a check, and such parts are then removedfrom the process.

Once the filter process is applied, in box 340 the remaining partnumbers are separated by association with a given technology roadmapinto (n+1) groups based on a set of attributes in the OEM Part NumberDatabase (OPND), where n equals the number of distinct symbols used onthe roadmap for the current period. That is, box 340 represents a sortprocess in which the part numbers in the technology are grouped into Ngroups corresponding to N relevant symbols on the roadmap, plus acatch-all group that is represented in the technology but are notaddressed by the roadmap. The grouping is preferably based on attributesstored in the database that apply to the technology.

In each of the N groups, the process continues by testing if the currentnumbers for preferredness and Preferred Part Codes (PPC) are consistentwith and accurately reflect any previously made revisions, as is shownin diamond 342-1, etc. For example, it can be assumed that the storedvalues are those permitted by the system, i.e. they appear on the listof FIG. 7, since this list has been previously checked. Errors that havebeen made, resulting in the PPC not allowed by the system will berecognized in the course of the process. If it is determined that thecurrent numbers for preferredness and PPC are consistent with andaccurately reflect any previously made revisions, then the process flowmoves on (box 344). If no, the part number is included in an errorreport for correction (box 345).

In the catch-all group of part numbers, these part numbers are all sentto the error report (box 350). In response to this grouping, an actionis then taken (box 355) by either updating the roadmap to accommodatethe group (box 356) or ignore the part number during subsequentprocessing (box 358).

In the event a part number entry in the database is correct (fromboxes/steps 342-1 and 344), it is then determined whether or not thepreferredness or PPC meets additional predetermined failure criteria(box 360). If the part number does not fit into any relevant additionalor supplemental criterion, the process ends in box 362. However, if thepart number does fit into any such criterion, that part also is added tothe error report (box 364). For example, a supplemental rule may be thata part may not be labeled “Preferred” if there is a single source ofsupply. In such an event, this part is flagged with a special PPC andwill be added to the error report.

Steps or boxes 340-364 above all refer to the embodiment wherein thepart numbers have an associated roadmap. However, wherein the partnumbers do not have an associated roadmap, then the process flowcontinues to step/box 370.

In the event that a technology does not have an associated roadmap, thenthe part numbers are pulled from the database to perform a check thereonbased on attributes contained in the OPND for each specific technologythat does not require a technology roadmap (box 370). The database isthen searched to determine if the part numbers in this category have anallowable preferredness value and/or a PPC that is assigned fortechnologies with no roadmap (box 375). If the part number or PPC iscorrect, the process ends in box 377. However, if one of the entries isincorrect, the part number is added to the error report. Parts with anerror report are reviewed. If a software change is required, then suchchange is made and then the data is re-run using this changed software.If a software change is not required, the entries in the database areupdated manually.

Referring to FIG. 4, an example of a symbolic roadmap for the presentinvention is shown. This symbolic roadmap is an example of an enterprisetechnology roadmap, in this case for memory, for conveying informationto designers and others. As is shown, an array of symbols for eachtechnology, which are defined in FIG. 5, are shown organized by time,with each row containing a list of generic part types in a particulartechnology. Each column in the roadmap represents status of the partslisted at the relevant time, with the predicted status in future years.The time units on the x axis are in year N, year (N+1), etc. to yearN+4.

A designer seeking to learn if a part is approved will click with hismouse on the symbol (e.g., the 32 Mbit circle) in the current year N.When the designer clicks on any of the symbols, a list of searchcriteria is shown which tells the designer how to find all part numbersin the database for every part type shown. The designer would then go tothe database and enter the search criteria for the part type ofinterest. A list of 32 Mbit part numbers with PPC codes, shown in FIG.7, will be displayed showing those parts that are permitted and/or thoseparts that are not permitted for the designer's use.

The roadmap shown in FIG. 4 is one that shows a fast-moving technologyto designers and others. For example, the 16 Mbit and 32 Mbit parts gofrom preferred (no permission needed to use them) to forbidden in aperiod of four years. The present invention is advantageous for theserapidly-changing technologies due to the invention's ability to updatestatus in response to changing circumstances and to reconcile decisionsmade by design groups and procurement groups.

Referring to the definition of symbols in FIG. 5, circles 510 representpreferred parts and no permission is needed to design them into aproduct. However, it should be appreciated and understood that thecircle represents “preferred” for the technology itself but there aretimes where there could be a part number within a preferred technologythat is not preferred. For example, if a part number preferredness is atPPC=2, this may represent that a company has no control over thesupplier chosen by the designer for such part number and that the chosensupplier is not one of the companies' core suppliers (even though suchcompany has a set list of preferred suppliers). With this in mind, thepart number at PPC=2 is still an allowable value.

As another example, another part number may be listed as a preferredtechnology and single sourced (even though other suppliers are availablebut not used) with this single source issuing an end-of-life (EOL)announcement. This part number may still be a preferred technology since“X” other suppliers exist who are offering such part and there are noindications that these suppliers will go EOL. In such an event, the partnumber may be listed as a PPC=3, which is valid for the part number.Alternatively, a PPC of PPC=E may be used for single sourced partnumbers that fall within a preferred (i.e., circle symbol) or sunset(i.e., sunset symbol) technology, which is also valid for that partnumber but the supplier has not gone EOL. Such an event within apreferred technology is allowed because otherwise parts will not errorout when they are really errors.

Continuing to refer to the symbols shown in FIG. 5, the dollar sign 520indicates a part that is desirable, but not yet ready for sale inproduction quantities. This also requires no special permission in theexample of FIG. 4.

The sunset symbol 530 is used for parts that are not preferred andordinarily may not be designed into a new product, since the part willprobably no longer be available while the product containing it stillhas a market. The roadmap of FIG. 4 is illustrative of a typical caseand does not attempt to cover all possibilities. For example, if theproduct is designed for the automotive market or for a governmentcustomer, the customer typically demands that the product andreplacement parts be kept available for a lengthy period, typically tenyears. Since the roadmap assumes that parts will go from production tounavailable in four years (e.g. the 32 MBit chip) a company supplyingthis market will need to have a contract in place with a reliable vendorthat commits to keep the part in production for a sufficient length oftime. The existence of such a contract and the reliability of the vendorwill add an extra dimension to this roadmap and its symbols.

The Red X 540 represents a part that will not ordinarily be designedinto a product or kept in an updated version of an old product. Onesimple reason for this status is that the vendors have announced thatthe part will no longer be sold during the lifetime of the productcontaining it. Not shown in FIG. 4 are premium parts 550, which arethose parts that are not low cost and are not highly available in theindustry.

FIG. 6 illustrates the optional feature of Preferred Part Codes, whichindicate the reason for the Not-Preferred status. This gives a designerwho wants to use the part an indication of why the part should not beused. The two approved symbols 510 and 520 have been previouslyexplained. The status of “Division Preferred” is intended to accommodatesituations in large enterprises where one group has different needs thananother. This provides needed flexibility to avoid interfering with thebusiness of one group in order to impose unneeded uniformity on theenterprise.

FIG. 7 shows an illustrative list of preferred part codes and theirdefinitions. Codes AB to AS represent blanket exceptions for divisionsthat have different needs or constraints from the rest of theenterprise. For example, if the automotive division needs to have partsavailable for a longer term than the rest of the company, it may haveblanket permission to use old parts that are off the roadmap, assumingof course that provision has been made for an adequate supply.

The present invention advantageously manages component preferredness andensures data consistency across all communication media. While theinvention can be applied to any type of component, it is preferablyapplied to any type of procured commodity/component that is eitherinter-enterprise (internal to) or intra-enterprise (external to). Theinvention easily develops and clearly defines allowable values ofpreferredness and preferred part codes for commodity part numbers basedon technology roadmaps. These preferredness and preferred part codes areconsistent within procurement and development, and are used to classifythe risk associated with every component part number. By periodicallychecking these defined preferredness and preferred part codes for partnumbers, the invention advantageously ensures that products are designedand manufactured with such part numbers that have the lowest possiblerisk of negatively impacting revenue, quality, and reliability of theresultant product.

It should be appreciated that components of the present invention may beembodied as a computer program product stored on a program storagedevice. These program storage devices may be devised, made and used as acomponent of a machine that utilizes optics, magnetic properties and/orelectronics to perform certain of the method steps of the presentinvention. Such program storage devices may include, but are not limitedto, magnetic media such as diskettes or computer hard drives, magnetictapes, optical disks, Read Only Memory (ROM), floppy disks,semiconductor chips and the like. A computer readable program code meansin known source code may be employed to convert certain of the methodsteps described below. This computer readable program code containsinstructions embodied in tangible media, such as floppy disks, CD-ROMS,hard drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium, wherein,when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by acomputer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing theinvention.

While the present invention has been particularly described, inconjunction with a specific preferred embodiment, it is evident thatmany alternatives, modifications and variations will be apparent tothose skilled in the art in light of the foregoing description. It istherefore contemplated that the appended claims will embrace any suchalternatives, modifications and variations as falling within the truescope and spirit of the present invention.

1. A method of managing component preferredness for components that areused in products comprising the steps of: providing technology roadmapsidentifying components available for particular technologies; assigningpreferredness values for said components; periodically reviewing in acurrent time period selected ones of said roadmaps and making changes insaid preferredness values to reflect current conditions in said timeperiod and current estimates for future conditions; changing software,including algorithms, as required to implement said changes in saidpreferredness values; and releasing updated software for production useby procurement and design personnel.
 2. The method of claim 1 whereinsaid components comprise procured commodities.
 3. The method of claim 1wherein said preferredness values are assigned using a plurality ofsymbols identifying each said components' preferredness status.
 4. Themethod of claim 1 further comprising selecting selected part numbersfrom a database that are associated with a technology for review anddetermining if a roadmap is associated with said technology.
 5. Themethod of claim 4 wherein if a roadmap is associated said technology,the method further comprising filtering out those part numbers notrequiring a check.
 6. The method of claim 5 further comprising groupingany remaining part numbers into (N+1) groups, where N is the number ofdistinct symbols used in the roadmap for said current time period, eachof N groups is associated with a symbol in said technology roadmap andthe (N+1)th group contains part numbers in said technology that are notincluded in said technology roadmap.
 7. The method of claim 6 furthercomprising determining whether said current preferredness values areconsistent with any previously made revisions.
 8. The method of claim 6further comprising a step of reviewing parts in said (N+1)th group forcorrect parameters selected from a set of parameters associated with atechnology that does not have a roadmap.
 9. The method of claim 4wherein if a roadmap is not associated said technology, the methodfurther comprising determining if said selected part numbers have anallowable preferredness value.
 10. The method of claim 9 wherein if saidselected part numbers do not have an allowable preferredness value, themethod further comprising adding said part number to an error report,said error report being reviewed in said periodic review step.
 11. Themethod of claim 1 further comprising re-running said review of saidselected ones of said roadmaps using said updated software.
 12. Acomputer program product comprising: a computer usable medium havingcomputer readable program code means embodied therein for managingcomponent preferredness for components that are used in products, thecomputer program product having: computer readable program code meansfor causing a computer to provide technology roadmaps identifyingcomponents available for particular technologies; computer readableprogram code means for causing a computer to assign preferredness valuesfor said components; computer readable program code means for causing acomputer to periodically review in a current time period selected onesof said roadmaps and making changes in said preferredness values toreflect current conditions in said time period and current estimates forfuture conditions; computer readable program code means for causing acomputer to change software, including algorithms, as required toimplement said changes in said preferredness values; and computerreadable program code means for causing a computer to release updatedsoftware for production use by procurement and design personnel.
 13. Thecomputer program product of claim 12 further comprising computerreadable program code means for causing a computer to re-run said reviewof said selected ones of said roadmaps using said updated software. 14.The computer program product of claim 12 further comprising computerreadable program code means for causing a computer to determine if aroadmap is associated with a technology selected from a database. 15.The computer program product of claim 14 further comprising computerreadable program code means for causing a computer to group selectedpart numbers into (N+1) groups, where N is the number of distinctsymbols used in the roadmap for said current time period, each of Ngroups is associated with a symbol in said technology roadmap and the(N+1)th group contains part numbers in said technology that are notincluded in said technology roadmap
 16. The computer program product ofclaim 14 further comprising computer readable program code means forcausing a computer to determine if selected part numbers have anallowable preferredness value.
 17. A program storage device readable bya processor capable of executing instructions, tangibly embodying aprogram of instructions executable by the processor to perform methodsteps for managing component preferredness for components that are usedin products, said method steps comprising: providing technology roadmapsidentifying components available for particular technologies; assigningpreferredness values for said components; periodically reviewing in acurrent time period selected ones of said roadmaps and making changes insaid preferredness values to reflect current conditions in said timeperiod and current estimates for future conditions; changing software,including algorithms, as required to implement said changes in saidpreferredness values; and releasing updated software for production useby procurement and design personnel.
 18. The program storage device ofclaim 17 wherein said method steps further include determining if aroadmap is associated with a technology selected from a database. 19.The program storage device of claim 18 wherein if it has been determinedthat a roadmap is associated with the technology, said method stepsfurther include grouping selected part numbers into (N+1) groups, whereN is the number of distinct symbols used in the roadmap for said currenttime period, each of N groups is associated with a symbol in saidtechnology roadmap and the (N+1)th group contains part numbers in saidtechnology that are not included in said technology roadmap
 20. Theprogram storage device of claim 18 wherein if it has been determinedthat a roadmap is not associated with the technology, said method stepsfurther include determining if selected part numbers have an allowablepreferredness value, and if not, adding said part number to an errorreport, said error report being reviewed in said periodic review step.